Comparative Transcriptome Analysis between the Fungal Plant Pathogens Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and S. trifoliorum Using RNA Sequencing

9Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The fungal plant pathogens Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and S. trifoliorum are morphologically similar, but differ considerably in host range. In an effort to elucidate mechanisms of the host range difference, transcriptomes of the 2 species at vegetative growth stage were compared to gain further insight into commonality and uniqueness in gene expression and pathogenic mechanisms of the 2 closely related pathogens. A total of 23133 and 21043 unique transcripts were obtained from S. sclerotiorum and S. trifoliorum, respectively. Approximately 43% of the transcripts were genes with known functions for both species. Among 1411 orthologous contigs, about 10% (147) were more highly (>3-fold) expressed in S. trifoliorum than in S. sclerotiorum, and about 12% (173) of the orthologs were more highly (>3-fold) expressed in S. sclerotiorum than in S. trifoliorum. The expression levels of genes on the supercontig 30 have the highest correlation coefficient value between the 2 species. Twenty-seven contigs were found to be new and unique for S. trifoliorum. Additionally, differences in expressed genes involved in pathogenesis like oxalate biosynthesis and endopolygalacturonases were detected between the 2 species. The analyses of the transcriptomes not only discovered similarities and uniqueness in gene expression between the 2 closely related species, providing additional information for annotation the S. sclerotiorum genome, but also provided foundation for comparing the transcriptomes with host-infecting transcriptomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Qiu, D., Xu, L., Vandemark, G., & Chen, W. (2016). Comparative Transcriptome Analysis between the Fungal Plant Pathogens Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and S. trifoliorum Using RNA Sequencing. Journal of Heredity, 107(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esv092

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free